The contrast is, without necessarily be a rule, in the fact that these artists speak less about their personal experience in relation to their artistic object. In both cases, however, the transformation of the concept in an idea makes the new reality actually more stable than transient. And at this point lies the therapy through art since the new reality and 'reality' retrieves another reading of the ordinary, from the imperative, that of the personal "deposit", interpretation of new data resulting from the process of perception in idea. Stability as redemption and incremental as a need to express this constant reality (object) which is reflected after a multiple view of the actual object produces the object which potentially can result in artwork. In this sense we can say that only then 'art for art' acquires a special value in itself which is expressed in absentia and in the name of the final object. A value in itself that invites the reader to put aside, to 'remove' the experiential artist and read the work itself. Understanding does not involve the experiential of other-artist, but involves the perception and idea of the subject itself which, different, invites in the production of reading a new reality every time so the "library of the artist" remains an unknown utopian and fascinating exploration. Dorothea Konteletzidou Dr. of Historian, Art theoretician
124